FREEDOM!!!! [4]

{{ She says no, but Id guess definitely yes. Its not come out the blue, the investigation has been going on for some time and there has been rumours of something dodgy for longer. Pretty sure she saw how wind was blowing. }}

{{ Police just released him, without charge. They say they are still gathering information and it will all be sent to the Prosecutor Fiscal, whose the person in charge of deciding if the evidence is worth taking to court. But the fact the police didn't charge him with anything is interesting. }}

{{ Well while the SNP troubles continue the news cycle has for now moved on already.
To bring you up to date, basically nothing much has happened. Sturgeon gave a short statement saying how difficult it had been, reaffirming that she had no official prior notification it was coming, and confirming that she had not been questioned by Police, implying the police dont think she has any involvement in where the money went.

The press after going hard as you'd expect for a week or so moved onto a half hearted attempt to question Sturgeons claim she did not know ahead of time, and therefore her resignation was not because she had forewarning. I say half-hearted as the answer is rather obvious, she got no official notification as she didn't need it, her own husband is the main suspect and as things crashed down around him he probably told her himself how bad it might be about to get.
That she is allowed, the problem would only be if the police had officially notified her ahead of time, and even the right wing press couldn't make that stick so gave up after two days.

Now the news cycle has moved onto the gift that keep son giving, the wonderfully inept Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross, desperate to turn an own goal from the SNP into an equalising own goal of his own, he called on voters to take part in tactical voting, and to vote for any party at the next election so long as they were best placed to get rid of the SNP. Labour, Lib-Dem, Greens, didn't matter so long as it got rid of the SNP.
This reveals the one genuine thing that does drive Ross, an irrational hatred of the SNP to the point of obsession.

Within an hour of this statement he was being publicly rebuked by a Westminster Tory HQ statement, who said he was categorically wrong and they wanted Scottish voters to vote Conservative at the next election.

To give some idea to how poor a politician and intellect I think Ross is I can only compare him to Liz Truss' time as leader of the Conservatives, with one difference, with Ross it's like they saw how bad and inept he was, but unlike Truss then decided to keep him as leader.

But best by example, here he is at Westminster on a Select Committee. The purpose and reason for this Committee is to look at how Scottish businesses interests are represented and promoted abroad within the Union. Here the SNP minister in charge of overseeing it from the Scottish government side is being questioned, with the purpose supposedly being to help business. Ross uses it for pathetically weak attempts to score cheap political points, and in doing so fails in his single main job as an MP- to help Scottish companies by finding out how and where and at what cost the government is promoting Scottish interests and if those are the best uses of resources in achieving the aim.
And he uses the time to do this-



Even in Sturgeon's final First Minister's Questions, when it should have been an easy win and a glorious day for the Tories, Ross tried but failed, I absolutely love Sturgeons "those are not the points I'd have chosen", a polite political way of saying to his face 'you are incompetent as a politician, this is how you do it.' }}

{{ Who Broke the United Kingdom?

These are my thoughts on the state of the UK, they naturally have a slant of a Scottish perspective as its what I know best and have experience of, but where important I have included NI, Wales and England in tracking how we got to this point. I know its long but pour a drink and use it relax.


The UK is in a poor state. Divided and feeling rudderless and without purpose.
But how did it get to this?
Well without gong into too much detail in the vague hopes of brevity the Union was not created at one time or as one idea. It happened across a century or two and each bit that was added was done so for different reasons expedient to their own times.

Scotland for example joined after its ruling class bankrupt the nation on overseas colony ventures that turned out disastrous. There was no public desire for such a union and it was met with riots in the streets.
In England it was not viewed much more favourably by the people either, but their ruling class saw it as a means to bring the Scots onside at least as an ally so they could do what they enjoyed most, concentrate on the French.
It was a desperate, unpopular sell out of the nation by the Scottish Barons and an equally unpopular, but useful political move by the English Lords.

Wales is many ways even worse. Technically Wales in not a country. Though the Welsh will quite rightly tell you differently. It is in fact a Principality, of the Crown, which is why the heir to the throne carries the title The Prince of Wales. Wales did not join any sort of Union, at least not willingly. Wales was conquered after the Normans took control of England post 1066. Wales was largely under one English ruler or another as a conquered nation and was therefore the first country to become part of the Union, then just with England and under force in the 1530's under Henry VIII Acts of Union.

Ireland as you would expect is more complex, but it basically quickly followed Wales under Henry VIII in 1542 when the Crown of Ireland Act declared the monarch of Ireland would also be the monarch of England, in other-words, Henry.
But it wasn't until George II at the start of the 1800 that the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland was formed. Note Ireland. Originally it was all of Ireland, but the south got its Independence from the Union in 1922 after a lengthy series of public uprisings. Leaving the North in the Union and filled with imported staunch Unionists from mainland UK to ensure a protestant, pro-monarchy, pro-Union majority there. This in turn led to a minority Irish born native population of largely Catholics who felt increasingly marginalised and colonised and whose grievances would eventually ferment into acts of terrorism against what they saw as occupiers.

The main take from all this is that the Union was not created as some intellectual ideal, or out of a shared vision of a shared better future. There are no Founding Fathers, or Great Bill of Rights or Constitution. Not one single member joined willingly or for reasons that were not either conquest led or motivated by expediency of the moment by a wealthy minority.
The Union was on shaky ground from its very inception as its foundations were built on such weak bounds and ideals.

What saved the Empire was a combination of things, first the Scottish Enlightenment, when Scotland was the intellectual capital of Europe, centred on Edinburgh and Glasgow- out of that came much of the modern world, the basis of the capitalist economic system, the idea of the modern secular government separated from religion, and of course new ideas and inventions galore, which in turn led directly into the industrial revolution.

What won the day was unexpected wealth, at least for those who mattered, the ruling classes and upper middle classes in each of the nations of the UK. The new factory conditions might be brutal for the worker, but for the owners they were more profit that ever before, more goods produced than ever more, and what they needed now was more markets to sell them too. And so Empire driven largely at the start by capitalist principles and the first global companies, companies like the East India Company out of which came the colonisation of India by Britain, but which began as nothing more than a vast business enterprise.

Wales provided the coal that drove the factories, the north of England produced the iron and steel to build the ships that were produced at Liverpool and on the Clyde in Scotland. And Glasgow and the Coasts provided the textile industry (much of it it has to be noted in the cotton trade and its associated slavery).

And London coordinated it and headquartered all the businesses and industries and collected all the taxes.

The Scottish Highlander, to whom the sight of an English Redcoat was a figure of hatred and desire to kill, was now the same uniform the Highlander pulled on proudly to serve the Empire. And it turned out a bunch of hardy battle-hardened for generations Highlanders are rather good soldiers, and the Scottish battalions quickly became celebrated as among the best units in the British Army.
When you hear the phrase 'the thin red line' (often changed to blue these days so it can refer to police) you are really referring to a line of Scots Redcoats in the Crimean War, facing off against the most feared fighting force of the day the Russian cavalry by forming a two man deep 'thin red line' and commencing with this exchange between commanding officer Sir Colin Campbell and his aide John Scott- “There is no retreat from here, men. You must die where you stand.”

“Aye, Sir Colin. If needs be, we'll do that.”

They somehow won and beat back the Russian cavalry, after which Sir Colin had to restrain his men who wished to mount a counter offensive with the words, “93rd, damn you Highlanders for all that eagerness!”

And it was a similar story with the Welsh, who likewise provided Empire with some of its finest fighting units.

The use of events like the Thin Red Line (which happened on the same day as the disastrous Charge of the Light Brigade”) as propaganda and much similar over the course of Empire, further gave the sense of a bonded Union.

Each part of the UK was contributing to the overall success, and so wealth and power of the Union of Nations and the British Empire. This was the historical peak of the Union.

But Empire of course did not last, and not only did it end it ended at often great cost to the UK and in a century that would also plunge the UK into two world wars.

The end result of all of which was as a nation the UK was still standing, one whose Empire had much dwindled, and who were victorious on the battle field but completely bankrupt and with most of its infrastructure bombed into oblivion.

The second world war in particular was probably the 2nd highest moment for the Union. A common enemy is a great uniter. And the spirit of needing to rebuild after the war persisted into the 60's and even 70's. But it was not what was still binding the Union together. Shared wealth was a going to be an increasingly dwindling resource without an Empire to fund it, but it was the legacy of Empire that held it together for so long.

What Britain was left with was what it had which had begun Empire in the first place, it still had its universities and intellectual centres, in England and in Scotland, and it still had the legacy of the industrial revolution, all those steel plants, mines, shipyards, textiles and other industries.
And most of those industries were nationalised, British Coal, British Steel. If you lived in Aberdeen but were employed by British Steel you didn't have much interest in not being a part of Union with England, your job depended on it.
And interlinking all these industries were the labour unions that grew up with them and whose members spread from one end of the UK to the other. And they were not passively in the community but active in it, organising days out for poor children, Christmas parties, doing charity drives, raising money for widows and pensioners funds, taking workers from England on holidays to workers in Scotland and Wales and vice versa. All of this collectively post WW2 bound the UK nations together still.
And over it all was as always the crown, now in the form of Queen Elizabeth, and whose actions during the war had got her much praise and respect from the people across the UK.
These were the things that still united the UK post WW2.

But they crashed down by the 1970's. By now the actual cost of the loss of Empire and the wars was apparent, Britain was no less bankrupt than before, worse the very industries which the nation had relied on for income, its heavy industries, were no longer competitive. Britain was no longer the guardian of the secrets of industrialisation. By the 70's the very unions who helped keep the nation together and won so many hard fought workers rights we take for granted today, were also the same people who had made UK industry uncompetitive. It was cheaper to go to an Eastern country to build your ship, by a nation that had no union laws or workers rights, and to get the steel from Russia or China who could mass produce it on a scale the UK could only ever dream of.

The only part of the UK that was still profitable was London and its business sector, whose long connections made through Empire and overseas investments meant it was still the place to do global business.

Up until the 70's the government solution to the dilemma of industry making no money versus getting rid of them leading to mass unemployment and civil unrest was by publicly funding the industries as loss makers. This was of course inevitably unsustainable. In order to try to keep costs and so losses as low as possible the government tried to cut back on unions and workers rights, the unions responded by demanding even more pay and rights and so a nasty spiral began.

It all culminated in the 'Winter of Discontent'- when the UK ground to a halt in the 70's and rubbish piled in the streets, electricity and water supplies were turned off at random and the dead went unburied, the whole nation was either on strike or reduced by law to a 3 day working week. The country looked bleak, and it felt bleak, its hardly surprising that this is the UK decade that gave the world punk and its pure narcissism.

The end result was the rise of Thatcherism and her brand of right wing capitalism. She smashed the unions, passed laws that curbed a lot of what they could do and how they went about balloting and the like, and she shut everything down, mines, steel works, textile factories, anything government funded, and what she didn't close she sold off to the private sector in huge publicity campaigns.
And in doing so she made entire communities unemployed and on benefits overnight, many of them have never recovered.

But she didn't just make those communities unemployed, she cut the bonds that tied them all together across the UK. With no more unions their influence on communities died off almost entirely. The path of joining a union and moving up the ranks was one of the few means for the working class to enter politics, and it was now a ladder that had been pulled away. No longer did a working class man in a dockyard in Liverpoool feel proud and bonded to his fellow dock worker in Glasgow, with whom they'd go on Union organised holidays to see. Now they were both isolated from one another and all they shared was having no job, something to be ashamed of.

Thatchers financial solution was to open up London, free up red tape, let it become what it is today, the money laundering capital of the world, she would make the UK a service industry nation. We would no longer make anything, but instead provide services. This worked, in the south of |England mainly, but a lot less so elsewhere in the UK, especially those old industrial heartlands in Scotland, North of England and Wales, where it became common for more than one generation in a household to be unemployed as a normal default state, it being common to grow up and know few, if any, adults in their community who were not unemployed and living on benefits.

The other important thing Thatcher did was an honest attempt to help lift the working class into the lower middle classes by owning their own homes. She accomplished this with 'right to buy' which meant anyone living in council (social) housing for x amount of years could if they wished buy the property, and depending how long they had lived there and paid rent at a greatly reduced price. With each house bought by an occupant a new social house would be built to replace it.

Unfortunately it didn't work that way. Many took up the chance to buy their council house, but then would shortly after sell it for its full value on the open market and upgrade to a better one. The bulk of the houses sold however were bought not by families, but landlords.
And the promised replacement houses never came, meaning there was increasingly less and less social housing left, and more and more private landlords.

Communities of social housing who had often had families living in them for generations, suddenly began ceasing to exist, replaced with a more transitory rented accommodation. This broke down communities at a local level even further.
Now the UK was at the position where the big bonds that tied its different nations and people together had been cut, and so to now were the bounds which tied those individual communities at a local level.

The final act of Thatcherism that directly harmed the union was the Poll Tax, a much hated replacement for the old council tax system which meant most people who had less would pay more, and those with more would pay the same as the poor. It was not popular, and she choose to test drive it first in Scotland for a year.
It was met with civil disorder and protests, and always the reply from Thatcher was the same, the lady is not for turning. Then she introduced it in England and the same result ensued. Only this time the Lady was for Turning, and in fact it ended her career.

Scotland took two things from the poll tax, first that it didn't matter how loudly Scotland protested or objected England would ignore it, and secondly that if England did the same they by comparison would be listened to immediately, only English voices mattered to the Tories.

It was Thatcherism that inspired a young university student from one of the poorest parts of Glasgow to go into politics and join the SNP, her name was Nicola Sturgeon. And she was not alone in being 'inspired' but Thatchers decimation of Scottish industry, workers, and disregard for public opinion to be driven closer towards wondering if the Union was really a good idea any more.

Any real sense of national unity, of a shared Union, now lay almost solely in a shared monarchy and matters of national defence- its was the era of the Cold War. But it too ended and so too did its effect on the Union.

The next big one was Tony Blair, Scotland and Wales had for decades voted overwhelmingly Labour at elections, problem was England had voted overwhelmingly Tory, so Scotland and Wales got Tory. Now for the first time in most folks living memory the chance of a government Scotland and Wales actually voted for of being elected was going to happen. England looked like it was going to vote Labour.
And with it came the promise to Scotland of a referendum on a devolved government, which passed overwhelmingly.
And so the Scottish parliament was born with Labour as its first administration.

But there were some problems, labour in Scotland ran it more like a big local council than a serious parliament, and it was clear Westminster Labour called all the shots.
It was also increasingly clear Blair, in order to appeal to business and Tory voters in England had not only moved the Labour party right but was more like a centre right party than a centre left one now.
And then the hugely unpopular Iraq war happened.
For the first time in decades Scotland had got the party it had voted for, and it had sneakily turned out to be a right of centre war mongering party instead.
This is the point at which the SNP began to really take off in Scotland and the decline of Labour in Scotland was almost complete.

The other major event of course in this time was The Good Friday Agreement, affecting NI. Brokered first by the John Major Tory government and finalised by the Blair government and NI Secretary Mo Mowlam, overseen by the US Clinton administration, it ended the Troubles in NI. Creating a NI devolved parliament at which Senn Féin, the political wing of the IRA would be allowed to sit alongside the Unionist parties. It importantly removed the border, which had been a flashpoint for decades, separating north and south Ireland. It was a major breakthrough.

The last thing of note towards the breaking of the Union during Blairs time was establishing the Welsh devolved parliament.
All these devolved parliaments have varying powers, NI Ireland is unique for obvious reasons as it is in many ways politically, Scotland's parliament has the most devolved powers, and Wales the least.

You may notice one country is missing from this however. England. It is the only nation within the Union not to have its own national Parliament. It has Westminster but it is the UK government, not England's.

And this is something which would fester in England, a lack of national identity and voice in comparison to their neighbours, as a result up to the current time Westminster itself has become more a Parliament for England than for the UK, catering more and more to English voters and paying less and less attention to the rest.

Meanwhile in Scotland a sense of national identity had steadily been on the rise and was shown in the increasing dominance of the SNP under Alex Salmond when they took a majority in the Scottish elections under a pr system, something the system was specifically set up to never allow happen. So large a win was it that it became impossible for the newly elected Tory government to refuse the right to an independence referendum.

During this the Union side had two main arguments- economic; Scotland didn't have its own currency, England would not let Scotland use the pound, we would lose access to all UK overseas trade treaties and implied, we needed English money to survive. And Europe; if we left the UK we would also be leaving the EU and have to reapply as a new nation, and we'd not get back in because our economy would be new and Spain would block it to stop a precedent for Catalonia. The only way to remain the Eu was to remain in the Union.
This was topped off with the Vow- a joint statement made on behalf of all the Unionist parties through Gordon Brown promising full federalisation and equal voice in all UK matters.
The Union side won by a narrow margin of 52% to 48%
But it came at great cost to Labour in Scotland, the sight of them standing shoulder to shoulder with Tories was too much for many of their Scottish voters and was what finally killed them off to this day in Scotland.

Then David Cameron brought about Brexit.
Brexit arose out of a specifically English problem. The political map of the UK at this time is more or less- south of England Tory heartlands, north of England and Wales, labour heartlands, Scotland SNP heartlands.
Since Thatchers time there had been a split in the Tory party about membership of the EU. Some saw the trade aspects of it as so advantageous that we had to simply try to negotiate out of the stuff we didn't like, like closer alliances in military actions and pooling resources, the loss of sovereignty arguments. But there were a significant but still minority voice in the Tories who really hated the EU. And they increased in prominence as a result of the rise of a new party, the UKIP party.

UKIP were a thinly disguised right wing party lead by Nigel Farage, who were vehemently opposed to further UK integration with European law and wanted Britain out the EU, and an end to freedom of movement to stop foreigners 'swamping' the nation. And they were doing well in those south of England heartlands belonging to the Tories. Well enough to be stealing not just local council seats, but actual Westminster seats.
Then some of the anti-EU Tories defected and crossed the floor, joining UKIP. And Cameron, fearing a loss of both traditional Tory voters and more of his own party to UKIP panicked and hit the big red button.

Cameron had calculated there was no real appetite in the nation to leave the EU, so he took the gamble he could end both UKIP and, once and for all, silence the anti-European group in his own party, by holding a referendum on staying or leaving. Absolutely confident the people would vote to stay.
And then he ran the worse campaign ever and the leave side ran an organised, but utterly deceitful, campaign.
And Boris Johnson, a lifelong pro-European but who was smelling which way the wind was blowing jumped sides and became a leader of the leave campaign.

Leave won, Cameron resigned and May got in. But Boris was perfectly placed as the champion of the winning side to get to PM eventually, he organised the anti-EU Tories against May and voted down her Brexit bill and May was forced to resign too, leaving it open for Boris to become PM. But now he had to satisfy the people who got him there the right wing anti-EU group of Tories, so he came up with a botched Brexit plan that would sound good to the right people and where he couldn't, he simply lied, such as saying there would be no border down the Irish Sea between NI and mainland UK, after signing a treaty with pages and pages dedicated to how the border would function. But he still got elected on a huge majority of English votes in a wave of 'Get Brexit Done' slogans.

But all this euphoria to solve an English problem was only in England. UKIP never won a seat outside of England, the voters of Scotland and Wales had not even voted Tory let alone UKIP. And in the referendum Scotland voted to remain, so did NI, and Wales, though it marginally voted to leave was distinctly split by the English speaking and settled southern Wales who voted leave, and the Welsh speaking northern parts who voted remain. This solely English matter had spiralled out to engulf everyone.

The vote had split the nations, not only across borders but within some of them, but only one was being listened to, England.

In a sense Cameron gave England what is wanted without knowing it, a chance to voice its own identity that it was never given.
And Boris gave them effectively what they wanted, a Westminster focused on English concerns and English only problems. Their own parliament.

And then one of the lasting ties for more than three generations of Brits in some cases ended. The Queen died, and with her one of the last truly bonding ties between the nations.

The legacy of all this on the Union today is pretty clear to see. Brexit has caused harm across all walks of life, from lack of workers and overseas students and exchanges, to financial damage to the economy and loss on inward investment to the inability to move freely about Europe.
Despite recent political problems in the SNP the polls for Independence remain about where they were at the last referendum, with half the country wanting out the Union and half to remain.
In NI the parliament is closed as the DUP refuse to take their seats until they are satisfied there will be no border of any sort or EU Court oversight of any aspect of Brexit, and also its an excuse not to sit under the first ever elected Sinn Féin party in NI, indicating a direction of travel away from the UK and towards Irish reunification.

And in all of this is the largest, most populated, most important bit of the UK, England. The situation for the English has been different to the rest of the UK. They bear the brunt of immigration, they have no English Parliament to appeal to or express their views to through the ballot. And whereas no one cares if you fly a St Andrews flag in Scotland, or a welsh flag in Wales, but if your an Englishman flying a St George you may as well be a signed up skin-headed Nazi thug. Why this is I don't really know, I'd need an English perspective on it. But its long seemed clear England has a national identity crisis and means to express itself in a uniquely English manner, just as Scots, Welsh and Irish do through their parliaments. And Brexit was in part an expression of that identity crisis.


So to sum up.
The Union was rather imposed or done for expedient at the time reasons rather than thought a good idea by anyone.
The Enlightenment, Industrial Revolution and Empire combined to hold the UK together with a shared sense of values, ambition and contribution to the cause.
Post WW2 the legacy of Empire, UK industry, was all that was keeping the UK afloat.
UK industry was dismantled by Thatcher and replaced with a services based economy focused on London.
Thatcher kills off the power of the unions, and with most industry gone the ties between different communities are gone, as is the main means of working class entering politics.
Thatcher creates right to buy and sells of council housing as well as selling national industries remaining to fund her services revolution.
Blair sets up the developed Parliaments and the Good Friday Agreement happens. He also goes to war in Iraq and moves Labour so far right they are lampooned as lightweight Tories.
Rise of the SNP and independence referendum.
Remain wins.
Cameron calls Brexit referendum, he looses.
Boris gets elected on a ticket of Get Brexit done. He doesn't but he pretends he has anyway.
Boris bill is so bad even the DUP refuse to take part till its less crap and NI parliament closes.
Boris gets the boot and the short but disastrous Truss government happens.
The Queen dies and one of the last binding ties of the Union goes with her.
Sunak has a go at being PM, his Brexit bill is considered less bad by everyone except the DUP, the one group he had to convince.


So none of the UK is in good shape, divisions in every realm and between realms. And most of the things which brought the nations together with any sense of togetherness are in the past. The question for the Union in the modern day therefore is not what is it for, or what does it do, but what is it built upon? As without those things which bind a people together you cant have a Union of nations, just disenfranchisement and increasing resentment in all directions. }}

You should lobby Putin to attack Britain, via sea before Scandinavia finishes joining NATO and Russia's sea lane closes down. That will bring you back together.

I think its a combination of those things. When I noticed the slide it went in phases, (leaving aside Thatcher and just going on the 1990s). Blair's multi-cultural policy has left us with the mess we are in now with the reasons for Brexit mainly being massive uncontrolled immigration. Then 10 years of disastrous Tory rule which has destroyed every aspect of civic life and the economy. Each Tory PM being exponentially worse than the one before.

{{ Well Humza has choosen to go ahead with fighting Westminster in court over their blocking of the Gender Recognition Bill.
Given all thats happpened around it and it doesn't have a great public support, with about 60% being against the Scottish government pushing ahead with a legal challenge it might seem an odd call for Humas to make so early into taking over an unsteady ship of state.

But there are other considerations here directing things, firstly he had to make a decision by Monday as that was the time frame he inherited from the Courts, so timing wise he had no choice. I'm sure he'd rather he could have put it off further down the line.

He also ran his campaign for party leader on a platform of saying he would do this, the only candidate who did, so it would be difficult for him to now back out (though he did have an out he'd probably have got away with by saying the legal advice gave little chance of success, but he never took that) and lastly, and probably the most expedient political reason is he promised the Greens, who are the real champions of the legislation, that he would back it. And the SNP need the Greens in coalition to maintain a majority in the Parliament.

As a result the line the SNP seem to be taking in the press is to say yes they will fight it, but to play down the actual law itself they are fighting for, and emphasis the need to fight it no matter the law to prevent a precedent of Westminster simply striking down laws passed by devolved administrations. If Westminster essentially has a veto it dismantles the very basis devoltion was founded on.
And thats the angle they are pushing.

I think politicaly however Humas is going to have to do something fairly drastic and sweeping with one of the major areas of public concern, the ferries issues, council funding for maintenance of roads and such, the NHS (but there is a limited amount they can do as a devolved administration), education improvements, but he has to find something that will show he is also getting a grip on more everyday basic concerns.

A fault of the Sturgeon administration in its last couple of years was to talk too much about either process- how to go about getting a 2nd referendum, or on pursuing ideals like gender, which whilst they matter, are not to the majority their main issues of concern. They werent in practise for the SNP either, but as it was those things they mainly spoke about it gave the appearance it was all they were doing and allowed the oppostion to claim it was all they were doing.
Humaz needs to display the SNP are also listening to those calls for meeting basic needs too, not just going after the ideals and principles.}}

{{ I missed the coronation due to work, but I watched the main ceremony today and the first thing that struck me is how overtly Christian the entire ceremony seems to be, rich with Christian symbolism and overseen and administered by the Church. On the surface is a completely Christian ceremony, on the surface, as literally beneath the Crown, and the monarch, contained in the base of the throne itself, is the Stone of Destiny/the Stone of Scone/ the Stone of King Making- you can pick your name.

So what is the Stone of Destiny? Where did it come from? And why do British monarchs get crowned sitting on an old lump of stone?
Well those are not as easy to answer as you might hope.

First basic facts, physically the Stone of Destiny is a rectangular block of red sandstone, 26 in (66 cm) x 16.7 in (42 cm) x 10.5 in (26.7 cm) and about 335lb (152kg).

It has a very rough Christian cross crudely carved onto one side and iron rings attached to either end for easier moving of the Stone.

It is not possible to date the quarrying of the Stone.




As to where it comes from. Well there are two main legends surrounding it, one I feel can be pretty much instantly dismissed., that being that it is the biblical Jacobs pillow, the stone upon which Jacob lay his head and had his ladder dream.

There's a few reasons for dismissing this one, firstly there is good reason to believe the connection between Kingship and stone is a lot older than Christianity, secondly the matter of distance and how it ended up in Scotland from the Middle-East, and lastly we know where the Stone was quarried, which was near Scone, where Scone Abbey stood and where the Kings of Scotland were crowned (if you remember your Shakespearean Macbeth it is to Scone he goes for his coronation). So its definitely not from the middle-east.

Now there is another legend which says that the monks hid the original stone from Edward the Hammer of the Scots in 1296 who seized the Stone and took it to England for the better part of a thousand years in order to crown their Monarchs. So it is possible the current stone, quarried at the Scone Abbey is a fake and the original was from the middle east somewhere but this seems very unlikely, and like the crudely carved cross on its side seems like a later attempt to stamp Christianity onto a pagan symbol of Kingship.

The more likely legend concerning its origins is that it was brought to Argyll in Scotland from Ireland by Fergus, son of Eric, first King of the Scots.

Now I don't believe its the same stone, in fact I don't even believe that Fergus as King of the Scots was crowned upon a Stone, but on a plateau of stone.
To get to the bottom of this we have to dig a bit into Fergus himself. Fergus was part of the Dalriada kingdom of the Scotia tribe in Ireland who spread into Western Scotland, they were the people who eventually would give Scotland and its people their name. But at this early point they were Irish settlers and warriors who quickly established the kingdom of Dalriada with their capital at Dunadd in Argyll.

(remains of Dunadd, capital of Dalriada where the Kings of the Scotia were crowned)


So we have to look at the Irish traditions regards King-making they brought with them. Most prominent and obvious here is the Lia Fail (Irish Gaelic for 'stone of destiny') used at the Irish capital of Tara in the crowning of the High Kings of Ireland.

So there is a strong and obvious tradition and connection between stone and kingship predating both Christianity and the known current Stone that even shares the same name.
In all probability the legends, myths, beliefs that underpin this connection is much much older, probably going right back to the neolithic farmers who first put up the stone circles and monuments. This is old magic as it were.

Why did I say however that despite the link to the Irish stone that Fergus was probably not crowned on a stone but on a plateau of stone? Well that's because if you visit the remains of the capital of Dalriada at Dunadd you will find atop it the king-making site, a large flat exposed rock, into which has been carved a foot shaped hole. Where the true King would place his foot as part of his coronation and legend says the very stones will cry out in declaration and acceptance of the fact.



That last part probably gives a link into part of the thinking behind this, which also appears in other medieval literature such as the Arthurian legends, the idea that the King and the Land are the same, connected, and the fortunes of one is reflected in the other.
It can be seen how this sort of thinking may have evolved in the neolithic period of Britain where not only where they working in massive stone monuments for the first time, but they were the first farmers. The first who did not see themselves as just another part of the landscape they inhabited, the first who did not merely rule their tribe as they migrated across the land following the herds but who remained permanently in one place, they were the first shapers and changers of the very land itself. The idea that their leaders would therefore need to have a 'right' to not just rule their people but the land too seems a natural progression of thought for the first ever farmers, whose very existence and success was now so dependent upon that land.

But it seems to me most likely we can trace the idea back historically at least to the Irish Stone of Destiny, and that the tradition was brought with the Scotia to Dalriada in Scotland where the idea of stone and Kingship was maintained, first with the plateau with foot imprint, then later after the Dalriada was no longer important or even settled place it was replaced with a more portable stone version.

This seems to me the most likely route for the idea of the Stone to have taken from pagan times through to current day. And the current stone is therefore almost certainly neither the original Irish one nor what was original used at Dalriada, where the natural plateaus of stone made use of an individual stone unnecessary. And conversely if they had brought the original Irish Stone with them they would have not needed to use the rock plateau at all. Rather the evidence seems to indicate to me that they brought the idea with them not the physical Stone and made their own version of that tradition and belief on the plateau.

The thing about monarchs, or at least 'real' ones, is that it takes more than just sticking a sparkly pointy hat on them to make a genuine monarch, it requires for want of a better word, magic, to be genuine. This takes several symbolic forms. A good example is the oil used to anoint a monarch. In Europe all monarchs are and were anointed with oil blessed personally by the Pope or in UK's case after it split from the Catholic Church under Henry VIII, by the Archbishop of the Church of England. It is the monarchs divine seal of approval and a sign that the monarch is the choice of God and rules under God with God's blessing.
Now you could scientifically examine that oil before its blessed, after its blessed, as its being administered and afterwards, and you'd find its exactly the same stuff, unchanged by any of these events. But that is where the human 'magic' comes in, for somehow in this process to us the substance does change, from something that is just a substance to something that has the power to endorse a monarch under God.

In reality of course the real reason for the anointing oil was political as it gave the Catholic Church huge control over the rulers of other nations, with the power to grant the anointment or excommunicate a would be leader.

The coronation ceremony also involves a couple of swords, whose deeds are tied solely to legendary individuals or events, there is the Sword of Temporal Justice. The Sword of Spiritual Justice and the Sword of Mercy, their parts in the ceremony date back to the 1100's and Richard the Lionheart (thought the swords in use today date from the 17th century) but they reflect again this addition of the 'magical' to the necessary process.

And that's where the Stone fits, its symbolism is one of having the right to rule not just from the people or from God, but from the land itself.

When Edward the 1st took it from Scotland he did so for more than one reason. Firstly it was not only an important symbol of Scottish sovereignty and power, but it was crucial to the making of another legitimate King, without it no King of Scotland could claim the title in the same manner as those before them. Similarly with the reasons for incorporating it into the crowning ceremony of English monarchs. By crowning himself upon the Stone Edward could claim that he was the ultimate authority of the land, if not its people, and as such though Scotland could have its own Kings they must acknowledge his ownership over the land, as granted to him through the powers of the Stone.
The reason its still there to this day for coronation is that same reason, its legitimises the monarchs right to rule the land.

It was not until 1996 that the Stone was finally returned to Scotland, to be held alongside the other Scottish Crown Jewels in Edinburgh castle. But when there is need of a new monarch, as with Charles, its taken once more south across the border to legitimise the rule of the new King, and Charles, as his mother and all his predecessors back to the 1200's have done he was crowned sitting upon the Stone of Destiny, making him King over his subjects, but also over the land he rules.

(The Throne upon which the monarch is crowned)


The current stone is probably no older than the middle ages at best, but the train of thought, the ideas and symbolism which it represents are so much older, by thousands of years. Despite the outer Christian garb in which we dress our coronation, beneath it all lies the oldest, still in use, pagan king-making 'magic' in the world.}}

A fairly plug-ugly stone. You'd think they'd spruce it up a bit.

{{ The whole throne is looking pretty tattered, but then it is several hundred years old.
Not sure how you'd spruce it up, not without altering what it is and represents, which is a piece of the land. Also it has been through a lot, apart from plundered and such it was bombed in the Blitz and partly cracked, and then when temporarily stolen in the '70's by a group of Scottish student nationalists it broke in two. }}

Thanks Petty, very interesting stuff.  its like Christmas, ancient magic dressed up in modern religion. I was enjoying the whole rain soaked thing until some fuckwit on ITV mentioned the 'balcony looked too white'. I would have liked one whole day without race being mentioned.

{{ I listened to Starmers 20 minute speech to Labour Conference outlining his vision for Labour in power and what they stand for, the answer it turns out is everything even if they contradict!
It is a pitch to the working class, but his delivery lacks all the passion that only comes from first hand experience of the working class, which Starmer does not and clearly does not, have.

There was the usual Labour vagueness of their actual policies- will Starmer renationalise anything for example? No idea. You could take some of the phrases he said such as not beng afraid to use the term "taking back control" and how these times need a hands on government not a stand off government as indicating so, but its vague enough it might not be.

But what really struck me is he is making this speech, meant to be a pitch to Britain for what labour stands for, in front of a huge slogan reading "Progressive Britain" at a podium emblazoned with the same slogan and he mentions Scotland once in passing in list of places Labour lost alongside the red wall seats in England, Wales zero times and ditto for Northern Ireland.

I have mentioned before how I have noticed a trend over recent years under the Tories to move Westminster more towards an English Parliament in its preoccupations. A result of England being the only nation in the Union not to have its own deidcated parliament.

And I feel this speech reinforces that, not only does he fail to mention the devolved nations in any way that is meaningful he choose to open this 'Progressive BRITAIN' speech with the following-

'Very good to be here at Congress House, the real Progresive Alliance, and the heartbeat as you heard of a movement that is winning. Where we need to win, and where we have not won for decades, in all four corners of England; in Blackpool, Middlesbrough, Dover, Medway, Plymouth, Swindon, Stock-On-Trent once again the largest party in local government.'

That might be fine if you plan to go onto mention the other parts of britain, but there are good reasons for Stramer not to mention the rest of the UK. NI involves talking about the disaster that is Brexit which Labour are avoiding talking about all together as they need to be seen to be supportive of the idea of Brexit to win back the north of England. They cant talk about Wales because Labour is in control there and they have worst performing NHS and general administration in the UK. And they cant talk about Scotland as they have been wiped out here for a long time now and cant claim so far any winning, and half of the sort of stuff Starmer only alludes to in his speech- redistrubtion of wealth for example- are not only SNP policies, but ones unlike Labour, the SNP have actually put into practice in the Scottish tax and benefits structure.

But I think the overarching reason for opening with such an England focused section, and ignoring the rest of Britian in a speech for Progressive Britain was that he knows he only needs to convince England, when it comes to Westminster elections the rest of us are surplus to requirements, a nice bonus at best. recent history has shown that- Scotland votes SNP, Wales Labour, NI has its own unique parties, none voted for the Tory government we have had for the last 10 years. And that's because neither Labour nor Tories require our votes to be in power, they only need Englands. So the pitch is always going to be towards England.

You can watch the full speech here if you like vagueness, bland delivery and a lack of passion-}}

He doesn't have the passion of Kinnock, the brilliance of Blair, or the down to earth appeal of Michael Foot but he is a whole world better than anything remotely Tory.

{{ Not sure about even that Figg, whats the differnece? He says in this very speech about his own policies that if people accuse him of 'sounding like a conservative' he doesnt care.
He's aware that England has unfortuntely shifted a little further right overall than where it used to be closer to centre, sounding and having Tory policies is not therefore politically a bad idea in england. It was also par tof the Blair playbook when he went against the Labour Unions over Clause 4 and cosed up to business as publicly as possible with all those high profile meetings and parties in no 10. }}}}

{{ Ok this will ned two short bits of context.

First whats the Deposit Return Scheme? Its a scheme thats been in the planning for years to bring back something that used to exists when I was a kid, you buy a bottle of something to drink, say a nice cold glass bottle of buckie, it costs you 20p more than normal, but when you go back to the shop later with the empty bottle you give it back and get your 20p back. It helps a lot with recycling. The scheme includes glass and plastic products.

Up until last year the plan was that the scheme would be rolled out eventually UK wide, with devolved nations developing their own versions at their own speed. As such the Scottish government who are in coaltion with the Green party who are heading the scheme in Scotland got to work early on it, Wales did similar but a bit behind with their scheme its due to come online next year, the only part not close to ready is England.

Now we need the second bit of context, the Uk Internal Market Bill. This insidous, nasty bit of legislation was brought in by the Tories post Brexit, against the wishes and legal attempts of all devolved administrations to stop it as it basically runs roughshod over the entire devolution settlement.
Its stated aim is post Brexit for the UK internal market to be a single unified thing, with prices and charges being the same in all parts of the UK, enforced by Westminister.

But thats not its real aim. For that we have to turn to Lord Frost, architect of the UKs Brexit Deal, Boris and the Department for the Union. This Department was newly created by Boris officially to better coordinate between devolved admins and Westminister.
Its real aim was apparent early on when it made crude attempts to remove Scottish saltires from official buildings and even food packaging in Scotland for Union Jacks, that sort of clumsy thing.
But then they cooked up the Internal Market Bill.And it was a whole differnet level.

And for its real purpose we can turn again to oneof its creators, Lord Frost. Last month the Tories held a conference in Scotland at which Frost spoke, he advocated taking powers back from devolved administrations and returning them to Westminster, and he argued that more tools were needed to be put in place to control and thwart the policies of devolved governments where they disagreed, contradicted or showed Westminster in a bad light, tools such as the Internal Market Bill, whch he then went on to lament had not yet been ued to its fullest yet in achieving those aims. In Lord Frost's post Brexit Britain there can be only one sovereign power, Westminster.

So back to the Deposit Scheme. The Scottish one is now in utter jeopardy, bussiness and government having spent hundreds of thousands in preparation for it launching this year the Uk government blocked it at the last minute, citing the Internal Market Bill. They insist now that the scheme cannot begin until Englands is ready to launch (scheduled for a very shaky 2025 launch) this would mean the money spent is wasted. So the Scottish government asked for an exemption to begin the scheme as planned, given that was the Uk aggreement not a year ago, long after the scheme had been set in motion and money spent to do so.
The Uk government responded by giving an exception, excluding glass.
Now thats crucial, you see for the private companies who run the scheme when its going glass is where the money is at, its what makes the scheme viable. By excluding glass the Uk government has knowingly holed the entire thing below the waterline, making it unviable wasting the investment and putting the jobs it created at risk.

And of course their line, and the press in the right wing media (ie almost all of it) is that its an SNP disaster in planning they should have known it would contravene the Internal Market Bill, and simply dont mention the previous agrements, or that Scotland has for example different pricing on alcohol than the rest of the Uk already or that the Welshgovernmetnisnow concerned its own scheme is now under the same threat.

Its also the same playbook they used over the Gender Recognition Bill, right up until the Teresa May Tory government the agreement was that the devolved parliaments could go ahead and diverge on details, that only changed when Boris took over and set up his Department for the Union, when they decided at the very last minute to challenge it in court and claim it conflicted with UK policy.
They then briefed their pres to report it as an SNP policy disaster they should have forseen, and to claim the SNP delibretly try to pass policy in areas they know they are not allowed just to provoke conflict with Westminster and fight the politics of girevence rather than trying to cooperate for the good of all. Its the same basic playbook again.

I have to admit, disgusting as it might, be as a politcs watcher you have to admire the cunning underhanded politics of it, and the callusness of scarficing the investment, all the jobs and people's livlihoods in a cost of living crisis those represent, all just to score political points, its also very effective, especially when you have almost blanket friendly press coverage.

It kind of sums up the Tories perfectly in one. Effective but utterly callous and heartless. }}

shiters! Stugeons been arrested

{{ The only real surprise here Figg is why has it taken this long to get to this point? They have already arrested and released without charge everyone else involved including her husband months ago. Most folk had come to opinion they werent going to arrest her, as if they were it was expected to have been done long ago. So either this is just the very odd pace they are movng this investigation at, or something new has come to light now.

Been interesting weekend for politics watchers- Trump charged with espionage crimes and the potential of years in prison, Boris jumping before he lost his seat in a byelection after the standards committee found he'd delibretly misled Parliament as PM, and now Sturgeon.

What wil be interesting is to see if the police charge her with anything or as with everyone else so far they release without charges. }}

{{ They've released her without charge. In theory as theyve arrested and interviewed everyone with any possible involvement in this now they will soon have to either put up a case against and actually charge people or drop it. So we should hopefully, one way or another, find out what has actually been going on fairly soon.

Also interesting to see how this level of scrutiny over the use or misuse of £300,000 in donations compares to the rather lacklustre so far investigations into the billions in dodgy covid contracts given to their mates by the Tories, or the several thousand extra a year the Truss government cost every single person in the UK. }}

{{ I am starting to supsect there is someone working at the BBC news site who is deeply subversive and is trying to encode messages about BBC reporting.

Context first- last week the SNP had a conference on independence, best ways forward how to achieve it etc at which First Minister Humza laid out what he thought they should do.
It was essentially a two pronged attack, put a 2nd indie referndum as no1 thing on the manifesto (it has been in all previous too) and coordinate with grassroot organisations like Wings over Scotland who organise the indie marches to better get across the benefits of being independent with an aim of getting a sustained 60% majority in favour pressurising Westminster over time.

This however is apparently not what the Unionist news channels heard, somehow. Instead they heard that Humas was going to demand a 2nd indie referendum as soon as they got voted back in and nothing else, so much so that when Humza did the Sunday morning politics show rounds on SKY, after his introduction which was all wrong, the first words out his mouth had to be "Actually I didnt say any of that at all."

The highly suspcious thing is the BBC ran exactly the same line as SKY did, the false one, word for word, almost like the two biggest news channels in the UK had been briefed by someone on what to say.

Now that slant on the story, SNP demand 2nd indie ref, comes from BBC HQ, in London. Written and put out by them on the UK news page orginally, not in the sub directory of Scottish news.

But, and here is where the BBC subversive comes in, BBC Scotland had already covered the conference in the Scottish news section a day earlier, and Humas speech and proposals were covered accurately, they did try to spin the plans as 'ambigous' and 'vague' and to try to play it as if it was kicking independence into the long grass, but it was at least commenting on what Humza actually said.
In short it accuratly reports his speech, but its the opposite of how London HQ reported it.
Scottish BBC- plans ambigous, kicks indie down the line.
English BBC - SNP want 2nd referndum after next election.

They are completely contradictory.

But someone at the BBC has saw fit to do this on the web page-



put the fake London story right above the genuine Scottish one! That just cant be an accident. }}

{{ The old Scottish Ceremonial Sword, from the 16th century has become too fragile for use in ceremonies involving the Monarch, so a new one has been made to replace it, the 'Elizabeth'.
Its a claymore, so its a bugger of a sword, huge, I pity the poor bugger who has to hold it upright for an entire ceremony.



I love the pommel, I am not a fan of the hilt, and I like the blade and its inscription, its not too fancy, gaudy or showy, but its quality workmanship. Same for the scabbard, very nice.

The thinking behind the design is, starting at the pommel, thats a 2 billion year old stone from the isle of Iona. Its represents firstly the land itself and secondly the literal physical starting point for Scotland, and much later the stone age, the stone circle and barrow builders whose tombs and works still litter the landscape.



Next is the hilt, in the form of the national plant, the Thistle, its there to represent the life of the land and its made in Bronze representng the next stage in the land providing for the people, the Bronze Age.



And finally the blade itself, made of iron. Together with the scabbard they represent the working and manufacturing of the land for its benefit so to provide for our benefit.



It all basically goes back to the idea behind ancient Kings (and current King Charles) being crowned sitting or standing upon a stone, the idea that the land and the King and so his people are one. }}

Somehow I think this may drive Petty into a frothing rage. Just maybe.

{{ yeah Id like to see where he gets his numbers and figures from, not that he really gives any just generalisations, and so much missing- fails to mention for example scotland has 4 of the Uk top ten exports, including the top 2 (refined and crude oil), takes no account of military facilities such as Faslane or Coulport or the numeorus radar posts dotted all round all of value, or the amount of hydro, wind and other energy that currently goes onto the national UK grid (Scotland produces considerably more energy than our 5 million population needs, we are an energy exporters not importers as he states, its just we dont get paid for it as it stands being part of the UK, any tax on the energy companies goes to the Treasury in Westminster and we never see it again). Nor is oil 'running out' a lie Ive heard my whole life, there are in fact new large fields completely untapped, the question is not about if there is oil to tap there is and the enrgy companies want at it, but if we should given enviromental concerns. And all western countries face an ageing population with increased health costs, thats not unique to Scotland.

A good recent example of where beng independent would have financially benefited the average Scot was the energy crisis of last year, when the UK government, under immense pressure, adopted the opposition parties policy of a 'windfall tax' on the energy companies, who were reaping unexpected obscene profits.
This tax would then be used to cap fuel prices and pay out to the poorest cash payments for fuel costs.
The tax will by its end date have raised an estimated 2.8 billion pounds.
Now that money goes to the UK Treasury, and from there its is spent and given out. The government made payments amounting to about on average 600 pounds to the poorest families in two payements of 300 several months apart.
That 2.8 billion was the pot from which it came, but there are 67.3 million people in the UK to spread it among.

Now had Scotland been independent those oil comapnies would be paying taxes not to Westminster but to the Scottish Treasury, and the Scottish government could have levied the exact same tax at no difference in cost, but with a massive difference in who to spend it on, as Scotland has a population less than that of London. Scotland would have had 2.8 bilion to spread among just 5.4 million people. Benefiting the people far more at a time of great need in basic costs.
As has been noted in the past Scotland is the only country in the history of the world to have discovered oil and got poorer. And thats not by accident, its not that a fortune was there for the taking, the problem was in who took it and where it all went, out the country. }}

{{ Sunak is in Scotland today, he's up in the NE talking energy and is expected to greenlight a carbon capture scheme, and no doubt claim it as a triumph for the Union.
What he is less likely to mention is that it is an SNP scheme as part of their green target and the SNP green lit 4 years ago and put in the Scottish share of the funding. But it didn't go ahead as the Tories broke their promise to co-fund it and instead gave the cash to two companies based in England. So Sunak and the Tories are late to this party, and are in fact the reason it's late at all. It could be finished and operational by now if the Tories had acted when the Scottish government did.

SNP Westminster leader and MP for Aberdeen South, Stephen Flynn, said "broken promises" had left Scotland's green energy future in jeopardy.
Welcoming the investment, he added: "There can be no more broken promises or delays. Now is the time to strike on Scotland's green energy potential." - BBC Scotland }}

{{ Well Sunak came to Scotland and promptly announced the rape of the last of her oil resources, awarding 100 new licences for oil and gas in the North Sea.

Ok fine. Where's the money going? The Westminster Treasury again, same as the oil taken for the last 50 years never to be seen by Scots again?
Norway discovered oil at about the same time, has a similar sized population to Scotland, their oil fund now tops 1 trillion US dollars. Scotland's is 0. Nada. Nil. Fuck all.
Will we get an oil fund this time? Or will it all vanish once more into England never to be seen again? Place your bets. I know what I expect. }}